University of the Arts London Fit for purpose: A-level Art & Design

Transcription

1 University of the Arts London Fit for purpose: A-level Art & Design

2 For more information about this report please contact Dr Abigail Diamond: CFE Phoeni Yard, Upper Brown Street, Leicester, LE1 5TE T: or Ross Anderson: UAL Awarding Body, 16 John Islip Street, London, SW1P 4JU T: CFE 2013 CFE are research and consultancy specialists in employment and skills. We have been providing our epert services to public and private sector clients for over twelve years. We re-invest our profits to fund innovative research projects and our Policy Insight series.

3 Contents Eecutive Summary Research objectives Methodology Key findings Introduction Background and contet of the research Aims and objectives of the research Methodology Structure of this report Literature review Policy changes affecting Art & Design A-level Learning and Teaching Art & Design Specification Analysis The structure of the A-level in Art & Design The content of the A-level in Art & Design The delivery of the A-level in Art & Design Assessment methods used in the A-level in Art & Design Progression into higher education and university involvement in specification development Outcomes of the A-level in Art & Design Student progression into art and design courses in higher education Student progression into general higher education and employment Other qualifications University involvement in the A-level in Art & Design specification Concluding chapter: summary of overall findings Specification analysis Progression into higher education and university involvement in specification development Appendi 1 Appendi 2 Appendi 3 Appendi 4 Bibliographic table for the Rapid Evidence Assessment Stakeholder participants Eamination papers A-level in Art & Design structure Footnotes 78

4

5 List of Figures Figure 1: Survey respondents by institution types (per cent; base = 248) Figure 2: Survey respondents by current role (per cent; base = 248). Figure 3: Survey respondents by the programmes taught (per cent; base = 248). Figure 4: Survey respondents by programmes taught; A-level, A-level + others, and Others (er cent; base = 247). Figure 5: Survey respondents by A-level awarding body (per cent; base = 163) Figure 6: Survey respondents institutional Ofsted rating (per cent; base = 140) Figure 7: Survey respondents by number of years teaching (per cent; base = 209) Figure 8: Key to the histogram charts used to display results of online survey analysis Figure 9: Who chooses the awarding body at respondents institutions (per cent; base = 165) Figure 10: Respondents three most important factors in selecting an awarding body (per cent; base = 166) Figure 11: Survey respondents by endorse specialism (per cent; base = 165) Figure 12: Survey respondent views on the ways in which the A-level specifications support the development of candidates (per cent: mean values in descending order; variable bases given) Figure 13: Survey respondent views on the ways in which the A-level specifications support the development of transferrable skills (per cent; mean values in descending order; variable bases given) Figure 14: Survey respondent views on the ways in which the A-level specifications support the development of candidates (per cent; mean values in descending order; variable bases given) Figure 15: Frequency and effectiveness of delivery methods for teaching the A-level in Art & Design (per cent; base = 166) Figure 16: Number of hours spent delivering the Art & Design A-level, banded into three groups (per cent; base = 149) Figure 17: Time spent teaching the A-level in Art and design per week by respondents institutional Ofsted rating (per cent; bases: Requires Improvement = 14, Good = 59, Outstanding = 51) Figure 18: Average time spent delivering A-level Art & Design per week, by institutional Ofsted rating (mean hours: minutes; bases: Requires Improvement = 14, Good = 59, Outstanding = 51) Figure 19: Average length of taught sessions (per cent; base = 158) Figure 20: Methods of assessment and their effectiveness in the A-level in Art & Design (per cent; base = 163). Figure 21: Survey respondent views on the assessment arrangements of the Art & Design A-level (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases given). Figure 22: Views on the moderation procedures for Art & Design A-level (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases given). Figure 23: Views on eternal moderation by programme taught (mean values: bases range from ). Figure 24: The most valuable outcomes of the A-level Art & Design (per cent; base = 234) Figure 25: Overall view of the effectiveness of the A-level in Art & Design in preparing students for progression into art and design courses at higher education (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases given). Figure 26: Overall view of the effectiveness of the A-level in Art & Design in preparing students for progression into art and design courses at higher education, by programme taught (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases range from ) Figure 27: Overall view of the effectiveness of the A-level in Art & Design in preparing students for progression into art and design courses at higher education, by institutional Ofsted rating (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases = Outstanding 55 54; Good 61 59; Requires Improvement 16 14) Figure 28: Overall view of the effectiveness of the A-level in Art & Design in preparing students for progression into art and design courses at higher education, by institution (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases range from ) Figure 29: Overall view of the effectiveness of the A-level in Art & Design in preparing students for progression into art and design courses at higher education, by job role (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases range from ) Figure 30: Survey respondent views on the effectiveness of the A-level in Art & Design in preparing students for progression into general higher education or employment (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases given) Figure 31: Survey respondent views on the effectiveness of the A-level in Art & Design in preparing students for progression into general higher education or employment, by taught programme (mean values; bases range from ) Figure 32: Survey respondent views on the effectiveness of the A-level in Art & Design in preparing students for progression into general higher education or employment, by institution (mean values; bases range from ). Figure 33: Which qualifications are better at preparing candidates for progression into higher education? Figure 34: Survey respondent views on the etent to which universities should be involved in the A-level Art & Design specification (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases given) Figure 35: Survey respondent views on the etent to which universities should be involved in the A-level Art & Design specification, by taught programme (per cent; mean values in descending order; bases range from ). Figure 36: Likelihood of respondent institutions adopting a UAL branded A-level in Art & Design qualification (base=90). Figure 37: Survey respondents by A-level awarding body (per cent; base = 163). Figure 38: Survey respondents institutional Ofsted rating (per cent; base = 140). Figure 39: Survey respondents by number of years teaching (per cent; base = 209). List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Depth interview quota by institution type, region and awarding body Summary of Unit 1 structure, by awarding body. Summary of Unit 2 structure, by awarding body. Summary of Unit 3 structure, by awarding body. Summary of Unit 4 structure, by awarding body. Weighting of the assessment objectives (*N.B. OCR and WJEC weightings are as given in the specifications, but should be halved to be comparable with the other weightings). REA bibliographic table. Specification structure comparison by awarding body.

6 1 1. Eecutive Summary The eecutive summary for this report sets out the key activities and findings of the research for the University of the Arts London. The University of the Arts London commissioned CFE to undertake research into the A-Level in Art & Design in November 2012 in order to understand whether it was fit for purpose in terms of its primary aim of supporting progression into higher education. The research also eamines the demand for university involvement in the development of future A-level in Art & Design specifications, and in what contet this development would take place. Research objectives Three key objectives were set in order to address the aims of the research aim: To compare and contrast the structure, content, delivery and assessment of the A-levels in Art and Design currently offered by AQA, OCR, Edecel and WJEC; To identify the key strengths and weaknesses of, as well as any issues with, the eisting qualifications; and, To present an assessment of what an ideal curriculum for A-level Art and Design might look like that builds on good practice and addresses the key issues and limitations of the eisting qualifications. Key findings The key findings detailed in this research are presented under the following headings: Specification analysis, including findings related to the following: Structure; Content; Delivery; Assessment. Methodology This research presents analyses of data collected from primary secondary methods carried out to fulfil the objectives listed above. The methods used were as follows: A detailed Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) providing a structured account of the most recent and significant developments in policy and pedagogy that impact on the development, provision and assessment of the A-level in Art & Design; A review of the four main A-level in Art & Design specifications currently offered by AQA, OCR, Edecel and WJEC in order to capture significant features associated with its structure, content, delivery and assessment; Nine scoping interviews, eploring stakeholders views on current issues in A-level Art & Design provision including: the level of preparedness of students for undergraduate study; the proposed reforms to GCE A-levels; and mechanisms for effective university engagement in the development of new qualifications; An online survey of staff in schools, colleges and HE institutions in order to compare perspectives of the A-level in Art & Design from those delivering the A-level itself and/or equivalent and higher level Art & Design qualifications; In-depth interviews with staff from 15 schools and colleges and 5 higher education institutions eploring more detail issues arising from the survey; and, A focus group at Wimbledon College of Art eploring student views of the A-level in Art & Design, and its effectiveness in preparing them for study at higher level study. A further section eplores progression into higher education and university involvement in specification development, including findings related to the following: The outcomes of the A-level in Art & Design; Student progression into art and design courses at higher education; Student progression into general higher education and employment; Views on other qualifications; University involvement in the A-level in Art & Design specification.

7 Eecutive Summary Specification analysis 2 Specification analysis Analysis of the four main awarding body specifications shows that there is a common structure to these A-level in Art & Design courses that is largely dictated by the regulatory documents provided by the eams regulator, Ofqual. The areas in which awarding bodies have fleibility to structure their own curricula include the duration of eaminations and the proportion of each unit as a contribution to the marking of the AS or A2 years of the course. The specifications leave freedom for teachers to structure their own particular course content in terms of which artists, genres and movements should be covered and allow teachers freedom to deliver the course in their own pedagogical styles. The specifications allow for a degree of fleibility in terms of assessment; within the bounds of the subject criteria, awarding bodies have scope to adjust the range of marks used to grade candidates work, the weighting of these marks in the AS and A2 units, and the weighting of the assessment objectives as they are applied to each of the units of assessment. Specific findings related to the specifications structure, content, delivery and assessment are described as follows: Respondents are generally frustrated with the AS component of the A-level in Art & Design, perceiving that it stifles creativity and puts undue pressure on students to conform to rigid and structured practice; Respondents view the generic and / or transferable content of the A-level in Art & Design less favourably overall than the specialist and / or technical content of the specification; Despite being the most common delivery method, taught group sessions are regarded as one of the three most effective methods by only half of respondents. Similar proportions of respondents report that they use, and regard as the most effective, one-to-one tutorials and studio based learning; While the current specifications allow for a great deal of fleibility and freedom in delivery, of equal importance is the quality of the teaching in practice. Those institutions rated outstanding by Ofsted, for eample, spend 1h and 30m longer teaching the A-level every week than those rated requires improvement; In terms of the most commonly cited effective assessment methods used, portfolio assessment and individual crits are highlighted. However, Group crits, while not as commonly used as other assessment methods is regarded as one of the three most effective methods by nearly a third of respondents, with a higher incidence than methods such as eaminations and written assignments despite these being more commonly used; Respondents outline specific concerns with the eternal moderation of the A-level in Art & Design, and in particular with a perceived lack of transparency surrounding the moderation process involved and epertise on the part of the moderators themselves.

8 3 Eecutive Summary Progression Progression into higher education and university involvement in specification development The findings show that the most valuable outcome of studying the Art & Design A-level is perceived to be the opportunity to eperience a range of disciplines. Closely behind this outcome is the breadth of knowledge and skills that it develops, followed by the opportunity to develop a portfolio of work. Both of these secondary outcomes relate to factors that enable candidates to progress into higher education, particularly for related creative subjects. The idea of university involvement in the design of A-levels is largely supported, particularly in terms of the opportunity to contribute to staff development and other supporting structures. Such constructive opportunities are preferred to the proposal for universities to dictate the teaching methods or content of A-level Art & Design. The findings also show that many teachers would equally value the contribution of schools and colleges in addition to universities, to provide a more holistic and constructive mechanism to develop future A-levels that respond to and balance the needs of students, educational institutions and employers. The findings also suggest that teaching other qualifications besides the A-level in Art & Design affects perceptions of the effectiveness of the A-level to support progression to higher education: those who do not teach the A-level have a less favourable view of its effectiveness than those who only teach the A-level. Similarly, there are differences in views depending on institutional Ofsted rating, with those working within institutions rated requires improvement having more negative views than the other groups. The type of institution has an effect on the strength of views about the A-level s effectiveness, with those from higher or more specialist academic institutions (i.e. FEC, specialist colleges and HEIs) having more negative views than the rest. A range of qualifications were identified as effective in preparing students for progression into higher education, from the most frequently answered: the BTEC Level 3 Etended Diploma; and the BTEC National Diploma through to the least frequent: the Applied AS and A-level; the OCR National Diploma at Level 3 and the AQA Baccalaureate. The third most common response indicated that for nearly 1 in 5 respondents the A-level is considered the most effective.

9 4

10 5 2. Introduction This chapter sets out the contet for this research, summarises the aims and objectives, and outlines our methodology. Background and contet of the Research A-levels have been subject to considerable reform over the past decade. The structure of the current A-level stems largely from Curriculum 2000, which led to the introduction of the modular system comprising AS and A2 levels. Building on the recommendations of the Dearing Review of Qualifications for year olds(1), the new modular structure was designed to be more fleible and led to the restrictions on the timing of eams and the number of re-sits that could be taken being relaed. A-levels were further reformed in 2008 when the number of units for many subjects was reduced from 6 to 4 and the new top A* grade was introduced. More recently, discussions about the suitability of the A Level have been prompted by the Education White Paper Students at the Heart of the System(2), and concerns have been epressed by some universities that students entering HE are lacking some of the skills and knowledge required to study at a higher level. The Education Secretary wrote to Ofqual, arguing that problems with subject content and assessment meant that A Levels were failing to prepare students adequately for a degree and proposing that higher education institutions (HEIs) should take a more active role in the design of A-levels in the future. In response, Ofqual recommended that awarding bodies should provide evidence that each A-level subject has been signed off by 20 UK universities, of which at least 10 must be leading research institutions. There have been objections to these proposals; however, on the grounds that there is little relation between research ecellence and teaching eperience, and that there is a risk of A-levels being infected with a league-table hierarchy unrelated to the quality of teaching and learning. (3) Despite those objections, the potential benefits of university involvement in A-levels should not be overlooked; the position of universities between schools and further education (FE) and employment means that they are ideally placed to ensure that A-level curricula meet the needs of students, universities and employers(4). Moreover, the opportunity for universities to act as awarding bodies can reduce the pressure of assessment currently placed on teachers. Universities can also help with widening participation in higher education by influencing earlier stages of education and reducing the effect of attainment as a barrier to HE entry. Aims and objectives of the research In this contet, the aim of the research was to assess the etent to which the eisting A-level in Art & Design is fit for purpose in terms of its primary aim of supporting progression into higher education. Three key objectives were set in order to address this aim: To compare and contrast the structure, content, delivery and assessment of the A-levels in Art and Design currently offered by AQA, OCR, Edecel and WJEC.(5) To identify the key strengths and weaknesses of, as well as any issues with, the eisting qualifications, and; To present an assessment of what an ideal curriculum for A-level Art and Design might look like that builds on good practice and addresses the key issues and limitations of the eisting qualifications.

11 Introduction 6 Methodology A mied methods approach was developed in order to address the key research aim and objectives in a robust and rigorous manner. The approach involved a series of inter-related stages to capture both primary and secondary qualitative and quantitative data through desk research, scoping interviews with key stakeholders, and consultations with Art & Design staff and HE students. Stage 1: Scoping The first stage of the research involved a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of eisting policy documentation and research literature, a specification analysis, and initial scoping interviews with stakeholders. The purpose of this stage was to establish the parameters for the research and to support the development of the research instruments to be used for the primary data collection. Rapid Evidence Assessment The REA was designed to provide a brief and structured account of the most recent and significant developments in policy and pedagogy that are impacting on the development, provision and assessment of the A-level in Art & Design. The REA considered debates regarding the content of the curriculum, and the etent to which it does and / or should equip learners with a range of transferable skills in addition to technical skills, in order to inform our assessment of the fitness for purpose of the A Level in terms of its ability to effectively support progression into HE. eample, art & design + curriculum ) to ensure that the most relevant material was obtained: Art & Design: art; design; visual art(s); graphic(s); craft(s); creative; creativity; culture; Policy: policy; politics; regulation; curriculum; reform; consultation; Pedagogy: pedagogy; education; curriculum; A-level; GCE; foundation; PhD; school(s); college(s); classroom; further education; higher education; teaching; teacher(s); learning; learner(s); assessment. Over 200 sources of literature were identified through the initial search. These were screened by abstract/eecutive summary and by key findings and conclusions where necessary to assess their relevance to the research aims. Approimately 100 of the most relevant sources were then subject to a mapping process which resulted in The literature for the REA was identified through a systematic keyword search of academic databases and online searches for publicly-available material. Further material was identified through references and citations in the sources acquired. Searches employed the following terms for each of the main themes, which were used singularly and in combination with other terms (for

12 7 Introduction Specification review A review of the four main A-level Art & Design specifications currently offered by AQA, OCR, Edecel and WJEC was undertaken in order to capture the main features: Structure: including the number of units in the broad route of the qualification (the split between the AS and A2 components), the number and scope of specific specialisms, the breadth and depth of study epected, and whether specialisms can be taken in conjunction with each other. Content: including the balance between core knowledge and technical skills and between generic and transferable skills, the range and fleibility in areas of study, and the key learning outcomes. Delivery: including the process by which the qualification is administered. Assessment and grading: including the etent and nature of the assessment criteria, the ratio of eaminations to coursework and/or portfolio assessment, access arrangements for disabled students, and the weight attached to different units of assessment or specialisms. Stakeholder interviews A total of nine scoping interviews were conducted to eplore stakeholders views on current issues in A-level Art & Design provision including: the level of preparedness of students for undergraduate study; the proposed reforms to GCE A-levels; and mechanisms for effective university engagement in the development of qualifications. The interviews were semi-structured and conducted over the telephone in order to minimise the burden on respondents. The interviews were digitally recorded with the participants permission and full transcripts produced. A list of the stakeholder interviewees is provided in Appendi 2. The outcomes of these interviews were analysed alongside outputs from the REA and the review of the A-level specifications in order to develop the criteria against which to assess the strengths and weaknesses of current A-level Art & Design provision. These criteria were then used to inform the development of the research instruments used for the primary data collection during stage 2. The key features were then compared in order to determine the similarities and differences between the specifications.

13 Introduction 8 Stage 2: Fieldwork The primary data collection comprised three key elements: 1) an online survey of staff in schools, colleges and higher education institutions; 2) follow-up, semi-structured interviews with a cross section of survey respondents; and 3) focus group with students studying in higher education that had achieved the A-level Art & Design. Online survey of staff in schools, colleges and HE institutions Staff currently involved in the management and/or delivery of Art and Design qualifications in schools, colleges and HE institutions were consulted through an online survey which was developed in conjunction with UAL. The purpose of the survey was to capture benchmark to compare the perspectives of those delivering A-level and/or equivalent level Art & Design qualifications with the perspectives of those delivering to students with these qualifications who have progressed onto higher education. The survey captured information on: Issues relating to the content, structure, delivery, and assessment and administration of A-level Art & Design, including the strengths and limitations of current provision; Perceptions of the etent to which A-level Art & Design effectively supports the progression of learners into higher education and employment; and Perceptions of university involvement in the future development of A-level Art & Design. The survey was designed to maimise the response rate by being short and simple to complete, comprising mainly closed questions which were amenable to statistical analysis. These included pre-coded single and multiple response questions, and Likert scale questions. This ensured that responses were appropriately nuanced and captured the respondents strength of feeling and/or eperience of particular issues. An additional question was added at the conclusion of the survey, which requested the respondent s permission to be contacted for followup, in-depth interviews. The survey was launched on the 8th January 2013 and closed on the 4th February As an eisting sample frame was unavailable for the research, a snowballing technique was employed to ensure the survey reached as many potential respondents as possible. The survey was disseminated in a variety of ways, including: A third party mailing company, which sent invitations to heads of art and design at schools and colleges across England; UAL and CFE contact lists, comprising individuals and institutions both in the further and higher education arena. Contacts were asked to complete the survey and to forward to other individuals who would be interested in the research and eligible to complete the survey; Stakeholder consultation participants contacts; Organisational websites and through social media communication channels such as Twitter; and Communication campaigns, such as the National Society for Education in Art and Design (NSEAD) e-bulletin. There have been a number of recent studies to eamine the suitability of A-level provision, but art and design has been typically under-represented in the findings because of the relatively low level of response achieved from the sector. For eample, a survey of the views on A-level subject criteria by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority based its findings for Art & Design on the responses of only 95 individuals(6). A total of 248 eligible responses(7) was achieved in this research, which adds considerably to the evidence base and ensures the findings are robust and indicative, if not entirely representative, of the population as a whole.

14 9 Introduction Our sample is comprised of a range of staff working at different levels including Heads of Department (37.6%), Curriculum Leaders (32.7%), and teachers/lecturers (26.2%). Figure 1 demonstrates that respondents work in a variety of settings, the majority of which are rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted (84.3%). Two-thirds of respondents (66.9%) are involved in the management and/or delivery of one of the four specifications for the A Level Art & Design. Figure 1: Survey respondents by institution types (per cent; base = 248) The most common role occupied by respondents was Head of Department (36.7%), followed by Subject Head / Curriculum Leader (32.7%). Figure 2: Survey respondents by current role (per cent; base = 248).

15 Introduction 10 The A-level in Art & Design was the most popular taught Art & Design programme amongst respondents (66.9%), followed by the foundation diploma in art & design (37.5%) and BTEC Diploma (31.0%). Figure 3: Survey respondents by the programmes taught (per cent; base = 248). There was a relatively even split between those individuals who teach the A-level in Art & Design only, those that teach the A-level in Art & Design and another qualification, and those that did not teach the A-level in Art & Design at all (others). Figure 4: Survey respondents by programmes taught; A-level, A-level + others, and Others (per cent; base = 247).

16 11 Introduction The most frequently used A-level in Art & Design specification among respondents of the survey is that from AQA (46.6%). Edecel is the net-most popular specification, followed by OCR. Relatively few respondents used the WJEC specification. Figure 5: Survey respondents by A-level awarding body (per cent; base = 163). The majority of survey respondents work for an institution that is rated either outstanding (40.0%) or good (44.3%). Figure 6: Survey respondents institutional Ofsted rating (per cent; base = 140). The majority of respondents to the survey (69.9%) are very eperienced, having been teaching for ten years or more. Figure 7: Survey respondents by number of years teaching (per cent; base = 209).

17 Introduction 12 Follow up in-depth interviews In-depth interviews were conducted with staff from 15 schools and colleges and 5 higher education institutions. The sample was selected from the survey respondents and through proactive engagement by the research team with their wider networks to reflect the sector in terms of institution type, region and awarding body used. The purpose of these in-depth interviews was to eplore further the key questions outlined in the survey, in particular: The reasons why staff perceive the current A-level Art & Design specifications are/are not fit for purpose; What, if anything, should be done to change or improve the specifications so that students are better prepared to progress into higher education (and employment); The role, etent and nature of university involvement, both now and in the future, in the development of A-level curricula in general and art and design specifically; and, The routes into higher education, including the role of the foundation diploma in art and design. Table 1: Depth interview quota by institution type, region and awarding body Institution Type Quota Region Quota Awarding Body Quota Academy Higher Education Institution Independent (private) School Further Education/tertiary College 6th Form College South (ecluding London) London North Midlands and East AQA Edecel OCR WJEC Specialist Art & Design College 1

18 13 Introduction Student focus groups The learner voice has an important role in research of this nature and the opportunity to compare the views of teaching staff with those of students (as the end users of curricula) adds valuable contet to the findings. We conducted one focus group with students who had progressed into higher education via a foundation diploma in art & design. This focus group took place at Wimbledon College of Art and considered the following questions: What skills are needed to successfully complete higher education Art & Design courses? How important are each of these skills and to what etent have students acquired them? How effective was the A-level in Art & Design in teaching students these skills? What other eperiences are important in the acquisition of these skills? In order to capture all relevant information from the focus groups, the sessions were recorded and transcribed. The use of flip-charts, post-it notes and interactive activities were also employed to encourage discussion and the engagement of all participants.

19 Introduction 14 Stage 3: Analysis and reporting Quantitative data analysis The survey data were captured electronically using the online survey software SNAP and imported into SPSS (statistical analysis software) before being cleaned and analysed. Frequency counts have been produced to reveal the total number and proportion of respondents providing a response to each question. Many of the questions required respondents to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with given statements on a five-point scale. The mean (or average) response to these questions has also be been calculated. Where sufficient responses have been achieved, cross-tabulations have been undertaken to compare the views and eperiences of different respondents groups. Figure 8: Key to the histogram charts used to display results of online survey analysis. The survey findings have been tested for statistical significance(8) to ensure that any differences between respondent groups are genuine, robust and generalisable to the population from which they were drawn and are not a side-effect of sampling error. Throughout the report we mainly report findings that are statistically significant. Where findings are not statistically significant these are included because we consider them to be of potential interest to UAL. The statistical information is presented accurately and clearly in graphical form through the report(9). The scale data are presented in histograms which show the proportions of respondents who selected each of the five categories in the scale as well as the spread of responses. The charts also include the mean value of the responses, which is reported numerically and visualised as a red line on chart. Because we used a 5-point scale the median point is 3.0; therefore, mean responses greater than 3 indicate a tendency towards overall agreement with a given statement, and mean values of less than 3 indicate disagreement.

20 15 Introduction Qualitative data analysis The open response survey questions were captured digitally and analysed using a tet coding method. This method involves categorising responses into similar groups through an iterative process that refines the categories by further grouping and splitting until a robust categorisation remains. Once this was completed, we were able to produce a simple quantitative summary of the proportion of responses in each category. The interviews and focus group were digitally recorded and fully transcribed for analysis. A coding frame based on our initial analysis of the scoping interviews and a sub-sample of staff interviews was developed to ensure a consistent approach to the analysis. The transcripts were coded and analysed thematically in order to build an understanding of key issues in relation to the development and delivery of an A-level Art & Design specification that equips students with the skills they need to progress into higher education or employment. The quantitative and qualitative findings were initially synthesised into a summary of key headlines and emerging conclusions, and were submitted for discussion at the UAL A-level in Art & Design Project Board. The summary was subsequently worked up into a full draft report which was finalised following feedback from UAL. Structure of this report The report seeks to inform strategic discussions on the future involvement of UAL in the development and/or the delivery of A-level Art & Design curricula by providing a robust analysis of the etent to which the eisting A-level in Art & Design is fit for purpose, in terms of supporting progression into higher education. After the present introductory chapter, the report is structured as follows: Chapter 3 builds on the contet provided in this introduction and the REA by presenting our Literature Review. Chapter 4 provides an assessment of the findings from the analysis of the A-level in Art and Design specification, while Chapter 5 outlines the findings of the effectiveness of the A-level in preparing students for progression into higher education and employment, and university involvement in future A-level development. Chapter 6 concludes the report by summarising the key research findings and suggesting how university involvement in the development of new A-level specifications can be achieved.